Hi, I am attending the international human rights law classes in my college as a elective course. Because of some health issues I had a problem about regular attendance so that my professor demand me to prepare a paper about 2 case. But as I said just because of attendance problem I am having a trouble to link the cases to the international human rights law thats why I am asking your help.

Thanks from advance!

Cases that I need to work on

Quote

Case no. 3.Hillary Hart and Bill Cloron have been married for 15 years, but could not have children because of healthreasons, which doctors said was to be a very unlucky combination of their separate inherited geneticalillnesses – but still stayed together. Later Mrs. Cloron started an intimate affair with his boss, which wasnot known to Mr. Cloron for a few months, but then he became suspicious and hired a private detectivewho finally provided him with some hard proof about the relationship. He immediately filed for divorce atthe local court, but Hart’s attorney has stated that the proof is illegal, so cannot be used in the process – asa matter of fact, the evidence was acquired by wiretapping the phone lines of Hart’s workplace, because ofthis a separate lawsuit was started by the firm against Cloron’s detective. The judge has decided to wait tothe end of that lawsuit, to see if the proof was lawfully obtained, and suspended the process. In 1 yeartime Hillary and Bill have managed to settle their personal conflict and made an agreement about apeaceful divorcement, so that both of them can move on with their lives, and marry their new partners.They jointly asked their process to contine with the divorce but the judge refused, and they could not getdivorced for the next 9 years, during which nothing has happened in the divorce case.

Case no. 4.National Opposition Association (NOA) is a political organisation opposing the government in thecountry, and has been very active in organising rallies, strikes against it. One day Luc Lezinn, one of theministers of the country has become drunk in a restaurant during a closed government reception, andstarted shouting “all those NOA good-for-nothin’ idiots should be sent to the mines, at least they woulddo something useful”, and “yeah, they may march here and there up and down, but who the hell cares, Isurely don’t”. A journalist from one of the independent newspapers has recorded this with his mobilephone camera and so the videos have become available on the website of the newspaper within an hour,and then spread quickly all over the Internet. Ian Lockle and Joachim Glock, who are members of NOAhave immediately called their friends and told them to meet in front of the hotel where the reception washeld. In 20 minutes, already 200 protesters were there, chanting “Lezinn, resign!” and after being told thatthe minister has already left, changed it to “Lucky Luc!”. The police has ordered them to leave, as theassembly was not previously notified to the police, and according to the local law, a previously unreportedrally shall be dissolved – but NOA activists have refused to go. At the end the police dissolved theassembly, arrested Mr. Lockle and Mr. Glock, and fined each of them for € 1.200.

I need to point out the followings,

Quote

1. What human rights are affected in your opinion?2. Show the exact human rights from the two most important human rights conventionsapplicable to European countries: first find the relevant articles from both theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (accepted at the level of theUN) and from the European Convention on Human Rights (accepted at the level ofthe Council Of Europe)!3. If You can find differences between the two, show these differences and try to explain apossible reason to them!4. If You were to represent the person(s) underlined in front of the European Court ofHuman Rights in Strasbourg, what reasoning would You build up, based on theEuropean Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the Court? Can Youfind similar cases, that could serve as precedents?